The increasing prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS) and the increasing number of patients
indicated for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can lead to increased
hospital constraints. This study aimed to compare, from the hospital perspective,
the costs, resource use, and 30-day clinical outcomes of patients who underwent TAVI
under an optimized or standard clinical pathway. A single-center, retrospective study
was conducted among patients with native AS who underwent TAVI between January 2018
and March 2021. Patients who underwent optimized lean TAVI were propensity-score matched
1:1 to those who underwent standard TAVI. In-hospital costs and 30-day clinical outcomes
were compared between the 2 groups. A total of 182 patients (91 in each group) were
included in the final analysis. Baseline covariates were well balanced after matching.
Patients who underwent lean TAVI had shorter length of stay (median [interquartile
range] 3.0 days [2.0 to 6.0] vs 6.0 days [5.0 to 9.0], p <0.001). Patients in the
lean TAVI group incurred lower total costs than did those in the standard TAVI group
(mean ± SD: $41,346 ± 10,062 vs $50,471 ± 15,115, p = 0.002). There was no between-group
difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (2.2% vs 1.1%, p = 0.573) and pacemaker implantations
(5.5% vs 6.6%, p = 0.788). Rates of procedural complications were comparable between
groups. In conclusion, lean TAVI leads to hospital efficiencies without compromising
patient safety. Efforts to streamline the TAVI procedure should be encouraged to improve
access to TAVI for patients with AS, amid resource constraints.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of CardiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease.Eur Heart J. 2022; 43: 561-632
- Impact of early hospital discharge on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 98: E282-E290
- Trends in early discharge and associated costs after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A national perspective.Innovations (Phila). 2021; 16: 373-378
- Vancouver transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical pathway: minimalist approach, standardized care, and discharge criteria to reduce length of stay.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016; 9: 312-321
- Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021; 77: 2717-2746
- An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies.Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46: 399-424
- Optimising patient discharge management after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the multicentre European FAST-TAVI trial.EuroIntervention. 2019; 15: 147-154
- General versus local anesthesia with conscious sedation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.Circulation. 2020; 142: 1437-1447
- A pathway to earlier discharge following TAVI: assessment of safety and resource utilization.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 87: 134-142
- Development of the minimalist approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.J Invasive Cardiol. 2021; 33: E108-E114
- Improved costs and outcomes with conscious sedation vs general anesthesia in TAVR patients: time to wake up?.PLoS One. 2017; 12e0173777
- Comparison of local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 91: 330-342
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: November 01, 2022
Received in revised form:
September 13,
2022
Received:
June 17,
2022
Footnotes
Funding: The study was funded by Medtronic.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
